Technology assessment and regulatory strategies have been proffered as ways of addressing concerns and problems arising from availability of certain medical technologies. Regulation especially is invoked as a remedy that can deliver several objectives—as a way of assuring quality care; as a way of preventing medical malpractice and negligence; as a remedy for market failure; as a way of improving performance and efficiency; and as a way of even achieving national health objectives or wider social goals such as equity and accountability. It is assumed that the key issues in regulation are its design and having proper monitoring and enforcement.
The article reviews the regulations instituted to address issues arising from the use of reproductive technologies. Through such analysis, the article seeks to draw attention to the field of technology assessment and regulation in general as applicable to biomedical technologies, in a context of overall commercialisation of medical and health care.
BoivinJ., BuntingL., Collins.J.A., & NygrenK.G. (2007). International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: Potential need and demand for infertility medical care. Human Reproduction, 22(6), 1506–1512.
2.
ChangM. (2009). Womb for rent. Retrieved 12May2014, from http://hir.harvard.edu/frontiers-of-conflict/womb-for-rent?page=0,0
De SutterP. (2011). Considerations for clinics and practitioners treating foreign patients with assisted reproductive technology: Lessons from experiences at Ghent University Hospital, Belgium. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 23(5), 652–656.
5.
DeonandanR., LoncarM., RahmanP., & OmarS. (2012). Measuring reproductive tourism through an analysis of Indian ART clinic websites. International Journal of General Medicine, 5, 763–773.
6.
DickensonD., & IdiakezI.A. (2008). Ova donation for stem cell research: An international perspective. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 1(2), 125–144.
7.
ErgasY. (2013). Babies without borders: Human rights, human dignity, and the regulation of international commercial surrogacy. Emory International Law Review, 27, 118–188.
8.
FeenbergA. (2003). Modernity theory and technology studies: Reflections on bridging the gap. In MisaT., BreyP. & FeenbergA. (Eds), Modernity and technology (pp. 73–104). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Government of India. (2009). Need for legislation to regulate assisted reproductive technology clinics as well as rights and obligations of parties to a surrogacy. Law Commission of India, Report No. 228, submitted to the Union Minister of Law and Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
11.
HansenM., BowerC., MilneE., de KlerkN., & KurinczukJ.J. (2005). Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects—A systematic review. Human Reproduction, 20(2), 328–338.
12.
HoofW.V., & PenningsG. (2011). Extra-territoriality for cross-border reproductive care: Should states act against citizens for travelling abroad for illegal infertility treatment?Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 23, 546–554.
13.
HudsonN., CulleyL., BlythE., NortonW., RapportF., & PaceyA. (2011). Cross-border reproductive care: A review of the literature. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 22, 673–685.
14.
HyunI. (2006). Fair payment or undue inducement?Nature, 442, 629–630.
15.
IkemotoL.C. (2009). Eggs as capital: Human egg procurement in the fertility industry and stem cell research enterprise. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society, 34(4), 763–781.
16.
InhornM.C., & PatrizioP. (2012). The global landscape of cross-border reproductive care: Twenty key findings for the new millennium. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 24(3), 158–163.
17.
KarandikarS., GezinskiL.B., CarterJ.R., & KalogaM. (2014). Economic necessity or noble cause? A qualitative study exploring motivations for gestational surrogacy in Gujarat, India. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 29(2), 224–236.
18.
MadgeJ.V. (2012). Ethical issues in assisted reproductive technologies. Social Medicine, 6(3), 162–170.
19.
MaherE.R., AfnanM., & BarrattC.L. (2003). Epigenetic risks related to assisted reproductive technologies: Epigenetics, imprinting, ART and icebergs?Human Reproduction, 18(12), 2508–2511.
MalhotraN., ShahD., PaiR., PaiH.D., & BankarM. (2013). Assisted reproductive technology in India: A 3-year retrospective data analysis. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences, 6(4), 235–240.
22.
MascarenhasM.N., FlaxmanS.R., BoermaT., VanderpoelS., & StevensG.A. (2012). National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: A systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Medicine, 9(12), e1001356. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001356
23.
NewellP. (2002). Biotechnology and the politics of regulation. IDS Working Paper No. 146. Retrieved 1May2014, from http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/Wp146.pdf
24.
PandeA. (2011). Transnational commercial surrogacy in India: Gifts for global sisters?Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 23, 618–625.
25.
PointsK. (2009). Commercial surrogacy and fertility tourism in India: The case of Baby Manji. Case Studies in Ethics, The Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University. Retrieved 10May2014, from http://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Case-Study-Surrogacy.pdf
26.
QadeerI. (2009). Social and ethical basis of legislation on surrogacy: Need for debate. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 4(1), 28–31.
27.
QadeerI., & JohnM. (2009). The business and ethics of surrogacy. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(2), 10–12.
28.
RaoM. (2012). Why all non-altruistic surrogacy should be banned. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(21), 15–17.
29.
Sama. (2010). Constructing conceptions: The mapping of assisted reproductive technologies in India. New Delhi: Sama: Resource Group for Women and Health.
30.
SchieveL.A., MeikleS.F., FerreC., PetersonH.B., JengG., & WilcoxL.S. (2002). Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. New England Journal of Medicine, 346(10), 731–737.
31.
ShenfieldF. (2011). Implementing a good practice guide for CBRC: Perspectives from the ESHRE cross-border reproductive care task-force. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 23, 657–664.
32.
SparD.L. (2005). For love and money: The political economy of commercial surrogacy. Review of International Political Economy, 12(2), 287–309.
33.
SteinbrookR. (2006). Egg donation and human embryonic stem-cell research. New England Journal of Medicine, 354(4), 324–326.
34.
Van BeersB.C. (2014). Is Europe ‘giving in to baby markets’? Reproductive tourism in Europe and the gradual erosion of existing legal limits to reproductive markets. Medical Law Review. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwu016
35.
VayenaE., PetersonH.B., AdamsonD., & NygrenK.G. (2009). Assisted reproductive technologies in developing countries: Are we caring yet?Fertility and Sterility, 92(2), 413–416.
36.
VayenaE., RoweP.J., & GriffinP.D. (Eds). (2002). Medical, ethical and social aspects of assisted reproduction: Current practices and controversies in assisted reproduction—Report of a WHO meeting. Geneva: WHO.
